I think the market for crossovers has disappeared with the advent of cell phones and navigation apps. This is fine for users on metropolitan lakes, but when you get out into the bush on remote lakes and in Canada, your cellphone is useless. My mention of Garmin being the most versatile is based upon what lake and snowmobile cards are out there. The free Mn DNR snowmobile map is limited to Garmin as is Red Pine Maps. There is more available when it comes to lake and fishing maps, but it seems most of the newer units use micro cards, so if you are looking at these, your old SD cards won't work, and that is my reason for sticking with the old unit because I don't want to have to pay for all new cards despite the fact I would love a larger display.

I have used a Lowrance XOG (no longer available) on my boat and on my snowmobile for years now with no problems with cold or speed of tracking. I use a Lakemaster card for Minnesota lake for fishing, a Navionics card for coverage in Canada and LOW for winter and summer fishing, and a Red Pine snowmobile trail map for riding. Have ridden at 30 below without any problem with the touchscreen, it is hooked up to sled power, so it probably is getting some heat, and I put it inside my jacket when I get off. I recommend that you do a little research on the available chips for where you are going because different manufacturers use different chips. My use pretty much limits me to Garmin, and expect to pay couple to $300+ for chips for where I travel.

Unfortunately I have had similar experiences. Barry and Carol are no longer taking care of their customers and I have done many trips there. Last spring, I finally decided it was my last one and not worth traveling that distance for mediocre fishing and service at a premium price. We don't get any exchange for our US dollars which is not true of some other Canadian resorts. I have found much closer and better fishing.

https://shopping.shadetreepowersports.com/en-us/products/snowmobile/helmets/modular-helmets/solid-ckx-tranz-1-5-rsv-modular-helmet-winter
Would be hard to beat the price of the above Modular helmet with amber sunshield at $70 sale price for the yellow one. I recently paid $92 for same helmet and I like it, comes with a nice bag and travel case and has a quick release chin strap. An electric shield can be added.

Today (first day of standard time) reminded me to exercise my spare tire. A year ago I bought a 2003 Suburban which was my first with a spare tire underneath. After listening to a friend's horror story about getting a flat in Canada on a fishing trip and being unable to lower his spare, I decided I should check mine out and sure enough, it would not lower. After some internet research about this common problem, I was able to release the safety catch and lower the tire in the convenience of my driveway without an emergency, it was not all that easy. The catch was very corroded with rust. I cleaned it up with muriatic acid and then soaked it in transmission fluid. So today, a year later, the tire lowered fine and the catch looked good, so I soaked it for 5 minutes or so in transmission fluid and cranked her back. Also checked the tire pressure. I am sure power steering oil or any other lubricant would do as well. Just a happened I had of transmission oil hand. So my advice to anyone with a spare underneath, is to exercise it at least once a year. Spares are frequently neglected until you need them.

I was talking about the paint mixer. After I lost mine, I bought the slush copter made up north with the foam sleeve, and I would not be without it in my shack when I am drilling new holes with my gas auger. When I reopen holes with my electric, which runs slowly, I simply reverse the bit to throw the slush down under the ice. I don't have the money for an Ion electric with reverse which would be the clear ticket.

Works great until it falls out of your drill bit, I've got one sitting on the bottom of Lake Bemidji. Now use the commercial one which can't sink, and it is the only way to go in a permanent house unless you have an electric auger which reverses.

That is interesting because that situation, (the cable breaking), is exactly what the secondary safety latch is supposed to prevent. The latch must have corroded keeping it from spreading the hook open when the tension on the cable released. Had there been a serious injury, I think GM or whoever the Mfg. was, would be looking at a good lawsuit because this problem is well known.

There seems to be a problem with the secondary locking mechanism on all GM trucks that have the spare tire under the vehicle. You do not find this out until you need to access the tire in an emergency. This problem is documented in all GM forum sites but there is no recall or notice. People find this out when they really need the tire to fix a flat and no amount of forcing it will release it. The fix is a new winch assembly for $175.00-$250.00 to get the tire off and fix the problem after the frustration at the side of the road. This happens on Excalades, Yukons, Silverados, GMC, Chevrolets equally. If you never have to change a flat you would never know. My friend had a blow out on his Tahoe during a fishing trip in remote Canada and he was unable to lower his spare. He was rescued by another fisherman who had a spare. I recently purchased a 2003 Suburban with an underbody spare, so I decided to check the spare out, and likewise I could not lower it. After looking at some YouTube videos about this problem, I was able to get the secondary safety latch released using a floor jack and lower the tire. I did not have to buy a new winch and cable because I soaked the latch mechanism in muriatic acid to remove the corrosion and I then soaked it in transmission fluid and sprayed it with lithium grease. It works fine now and releases to lower the tire but you can be sure I will exercise this thing every year and before a trip as well as check the tire pressure.

Here is one study. Default Full text of hooking mortality study "The Issue of Hooking Mortality and Trout Management Jeff Williams – Arkansas Game & Fish Commission Darrell Bowman – Bella Vista Property Owners Association Harvest restrictions, such as length limits or catch-and release regulations, have long been a tool for biologists to manage recreational fisheries. Although length limits were historically implemented to prevent over harvest and protect juvenile fish until they reached maturity, they have also been used to increase the size distribution of fish populations. Regardless of the type of harvest restriction, the primary goal is to reduce the mortality of fishes in the population of interest. However, angling related mortality includes direct mortality from harvest as well as post-release hooking mortality of fishes that are caught and released. Therefore, if the fish anglers are required to release under a particular regulation die anyway as a result of hooking mortality then the ultimate effectiveness of the regulation may be limited. For this reason, regulations that prohibit certain angling gear generally accompany special regulations such as length limits and catch-and-release requirements. The Arkansas Game and Fish Commission (AGFC) currently prohibits the use of natural or scented baits in areas with special trout regulations solely because of the higher post-release mortality associated with bait fishing compared to that observed with artificial lures and flies. A review of the scientific literature substantiates this practice. Hunsaker and Marnell (1970) compared hooking mortality for cutthroat trout in Yellowstone Lake caught on single hook lures, single barbless hook lures, single treble hook lures, and single barbless treble hook lures, single hook baited with a worm. In summary, hooking mortality for all lures combined was 4%. Hooking mortality for bait-caught trout was 48%, overall. However, for bait caught trout, they evaluated hooking mortality for trout that swallowed the hook separately from trout that did not swallow the hook, which resulted in drastically different results. Hooking mortality was 8% for trout that did not swallow the hook, but was 73% for trout that did swallow the hook. Overall, 55% of the trout caught on bait, swallowed the hook. Taylor and White (1992) conducted a statistical analysis of results from 18 trout hooking mortality studies and generated an overall summary of those studies. They found that hooking mortality overall was 4% for artificial single and treble hook lures combined, compared to 31% hooking mortality associated with bait-caught trout. Pauley and Thomas (1993) studied cutthroat trout hooking mortality comparing single hook lures, single treble hook lures, and bait (worms). They found a much higher mortality rate for artificial lures than any other study at 20% for single hook lures and treble hook lures combined. However, bait-caught trout hooking mortality (49%) was more than double that of artificial lures. Schill (1996) measured hooking mortality for rainbow trout caught on worms in both a hatchery and a trout stream. He found the lowest overall hooking mortality (16%) associated with bait fishing for trout, of the studies reviewed herein. Like Hunsaker and Marnell (1970), Schill found very low mortality associated with trout that were not deep-hooked at only 2% in the hatchery study. However, 63% of the trout studied were deep hooked. Of those deep hooked, mortality was 74% for trout released after the hook was removed and 47% for trout released by cutting the line. This represents a 36% reduction in hooking mortality simply by cutting the line. These studies indicate that the high post-release mortality associated with bait is directly related to the higher incidence of deep-hooking with bait. Because bait is fished passively (“slack line”), the fish has a greater chance of being hooked in the gut or other vital organ. In contrast, both artificial lures and flies, which are fished actively, have a higher incidence of hooking fish in the jaw or other non-lethal location resulting in a much lower post-release mortality. Although there are those that would contend that only artificial lures with single hooks should be allowed in special regulation areas, the scientific literature does not support this assertion. Klein (1965) caught trout from a rearing pond with a daredevil type lure equipped with either a single hook or a single treble hook, and then released the trout into a raceway to monitor post-release hooking mortality. Overall, he found low hooking mortality with both hook types, but actually measured lower hooking mortality with treble hook lures (3%) than with single hook lures (6%). Klein stated that the single hook was often taken farther into the mouth than the treble hook and therefore, inflicted a more serious injury than the treble hook, which usually hooked in the edge of the mouth. Marnell and Hunsaker (1970) measured 5% hooking mortality for cutthroat trout caught on treble hook lures. Hunsaker and Marnell (1970) studied hooking mortality for cutthroat trout in Yellowstone Lake with barbed flies, barbless flies, barbed treble hook lures, barbless treble hook lures, and a trolled single hook and worm. They found low hooking mortality for all four artificial lure types with 4 % for single hook lures and 4% for treble hook lures. Dotson (1982) only documented one trout mortality out of a sample of 315 trout while comparing hooking mortality differences between single and treble hook lures. Schill et al. (1986) documented 3% hooking mortality in Yellowstone River managed under catch-and-release regulations with artificial lures and flies. Snuffer and Alexander (1992) compared hooking mortality for wild brook trout caught with five different lure types including Mepps spinners and Cleo spoons rigged with either a single hook or a treble hook, and Rapala lures with two treble hooks. They found 2% hooking mortality when lures were equipped with a single hook and 8% hooking mortality when lures were equipped with a single treble hook. They found no mortality associated with Rapala lures with two treble hooks. Taylor and White (1992) found that hooking mortality overall was 4% for single hook lures and 5% for single treble hook lures. Pauley and Thomas (1993) compared hooking mortality of sea-run cutthroat trout associated with spinners equipped with either a single hook or a single treble hook and found much higher mortality rates than any other study at 16% for single hook lures and 24% for single treble hook lures. These higher rates were attributed to the fact that sea-run cutthroat are larger and more aggressive than stream dwelling cutthroat and therefore took lures deeper than trout in other studies. Schisler and Bergersen (1996) measured 4% hooking mortality for rainbow trout caught on artificial flies. Schill and Scarpella (1997) found an overall 5% hooking mortality associated with artificial lures and flies by summarizing results from other salmonid studies. The requirement of artificial lures with barbless hooks in areas under special regulations is also not clearly supported by the fisheries literature. Hunsaker and Marnell (1970) compared hooking mortality for cutthroat trout in Yellowstone Lake caught on single hook lures, single barbless hook lures, single treble hook lures, and single barbless treble hook lures. They found no significant difference in hooking mortality for single hook lures (4%) and single barbless hook lures (3%). For treble hook lures, they found higher mortality with barbless treble hooks (6%) compared to barbed treble hooks (3%), but again the difference was not statistically significant. Dotson (1982) found no mortality with either barbed or barbless single hooks. Schill and Scarpella (1997) summarized the results from past salmonid hooking mortality studies. For flies and artificial lures combined across studies, average hooking mortality was 4.5% for barbed hooks and 4.2% for barbless hooks. They stated that “a 0.3% mean difference in hooking mortality from the two hook types is irrelevant at the population level, even when fish are subjected to repeated capture”. Therefore, they deemed the restriction of barbed hooks, a “social issue”. Based on the current knowledge of hooking mortality associated with terminal tackle, the prohibition of natural or scented baits in special trout management areas in Arkansas will likely continue. The use of circle hooks for bait fishing has demonstrated the potential of reducing post-release mortality to less than 10% hooking mortality. However, there remains much research to be done on this subject before bait fishing with circle hooks would be allowed in special management areas. The scientific literature indicates that artificial lures of any type will likely yield less than 10% hooking mortality. However, the type of artificial lures allowed in special regulation areas throughout Arkansas has been inconsistently applied. Some areas allow barbless, treble-hooked lures while others require lures with single, barbless hooks. This inconsistency in what types of lures are allowed can be very confusing to anglers. And although the requirement of lures with single, barbless hooks is likely the most conservative approach, it may unnecessarily exclude anglers that prefer to use treble-hooked lures. Barbless lures do not significantly reduce hooking mortality, but probably reduce some damage to fish and therefore have a value in trout management. In the future, the AGFC Trout Management Program will endeavor to make the types of artificial lures allowed in special regulation areas consistent throughout the state."

Thanks for the replies, this as been an interesting learning experience. As suggested by one reader, I did do some research on line, and based upon that, I am retracting my theory that barbless hooks would reduce the mortality of released fish. The studies indeed do show that barbed or barbless hooks make little difference whether a released fish survives.

Try this. Clean out the snow and ice in the hole before the auger breaks through and the water fills the hole and creates the slush which is what is heavy and makes the mess. Then when you drill through, you won't have as much slush in the hole which the ice copter will easily drive down.

I actually can get by with just a slush copter when the ice gets really thick and you are dealing with extensions through the house. The ice bucket adds at least another foot of extension. What I do, is drop my house down 1/2 way, drill as far as I can, pull slush away with a roof rake ( I know, something else to carry, but it works better than a shovel). Then drop hose rest of way and drill rest of way with extension if needed, and drive slush down hole with the ice copter leaving no messs at all in the house.

Slush copter works great, but you need an open hole first! The bucket helps you open that hole without a mess in the house. If you only have a foot of ice, a slush copter is all you need, but when you are 2 feet or more, you have a lot of slush to deal with before your hole is open for the copter.

This is an informal survey to find out how many of you would be supportive of a regulation that only barbless hooks could be used on lakes with a slot limit or during catch and release tournaments. The reg. would be for both winter and summer fishing. I am not associated in any way with MNDNR. I believe such a regulation would reduce the mortality of fish that have to be returned to the water, and simply want to find out if others think this is a good idea? For the rest of this ice season I am voluntarily going to implement this practice and see just how it effects my fishing success.